The dominant vertebrates

[dichotomy]

Homo-sapiens are and have been the dominant (as in population size, ability to control other species, and adaptibility to a large variety of earthly environments) vertebrate species for some time now. What have been the other obvious most dominant vertebrates of the present and past? I’d guess rats and mice presently would have to be up there.

 

Also, I'm interested in what some of the most dominant invertibrates are?

[Fred56]

Dominance is a vague target, which depends on what you're describing. We are the dominant vertebrate mammal, currently (which means we are much more efficient at getting resources, at dealing with competing species, ...).

 

Some bacteria are dominant in the world of prokaryotes (but it depends where you look), which we have little chance of dominating (but we like to think we can get rid of the little buggers).

[dichotomy]

 

Some bacteria are dominant in the world of prokaryotes (but it depends where you look), which we have little chance of dominating (but we like to think we can get rid of the little buggers).

 

Yes, bacteria interest me because it seems that at this microbe level evolutionary pressures have a much better chance of rapidly producing new characteristics within a species, and new species altogether. Is this correct?

 

 

 

 

So, does this mean vertebrates, as diverse as they are, are obviously much slower to evolve mainly due to their physical size?

Or, is the overwhelming destructive dominance of mankind the key factor in slowing the effects of evolution in other vertebrates (and cephalopods)?

[Fred56]

Bacteria and other prokaryotes do seem to have some evolutionary advantage over us more developed and complex critters, and the prokaryotes outnumber and outweigh every other kind of life by a 'large amount'.

An extinction 'event' is more precarious for lifeforms like us, bacteria can live in environments that we can't (even miles and miles underground, and up in the atmosphere), and would have a better chance of survival. Also they evolve a lot quicker.

 

Other mammals have a lot more to worry about from the threat of human dominance than any teeny-tiny bugs do. We aren't as 'overwhelming' as we sometimes think we are, for a kick-off.

 

An example might be something like an oil spill. This is generally pretty devastating for many forms of life (birds, mammals, fish, bivalves, marine flora), but some "bugs" tuck right in (dinner is served). The concept of (us) dealing to the world of prokaryotes is a bit far-fetched (but we might invent some kind of universal super-bug that proves to be a problem for them, so they would then need to evolve a solution to deal with it, which is quite a probable or even inevitable outcome).

[dichotomy]

Other mammals have a lot more to worry about from the threat of human dominance than any teeny-tiny bugs do. We aren't as 'overwhelming' as we sometimes think we are, for a kick-off.

 

Yep, I agree that as far as impact on microbes go, we are not considered overwhelming at all. Which leads me to hypothesis that with us about, microbes are the only earthly critters to have a chance at evolving uninterrupted and in a relatively speedy way?

 

Also, an all powerful man made "super bug" would still be a "bug" when all is said and done. So, bugs would still be dominant.

[dichotomy]

Okay, I'll try this.

What are the obvious most dominant (ie. population quantity) vertebrates of the known major geologic periods. Please.

[Fred56]

An answer to that question is still being researched by many different teams of palaeontologists, phylogenists and comparative evolutionists, or whatever. You could see what google or Copernic web searches turn up (if you're happy to trawl through gazillions of refs)...

[dichotomy]

There must be hard numbers of dominant vertebrates that have been found. So, I take it that these numbers have not been readily documented into major geologic periods yet? Or, are sardines the dominant vertebrates of all known geologic periods.

[foodchain]

There must be hard numbers of dominant vertebrates that have been found. So, I take it that these numbers have not been readily documented into major geologic periods yet? Or, are sardines the dominant vertebrates of all known geologic periods.

 

Well your question to me is a bit confusing. I am not expert either so please keep that in mind:D

 

Placental mammals happen to be a rather new trend, but do we call them dominate from the basis of physiological characteristics or there appearance in relation to the rest of the ecological landscape, in that what makes them better if anything? Nurturing instinct, is that just reduced to them? Some early line of mammal, cant remember the name had a really small brain size, what did that mean? Then of course you can go into the oceans, but there exists a slight barrier there in that you now have to account for that whole environment. Speaking of which how do you gauge species that lose more noticeable traits, such as penguins. Some species of seal live as long as the teeth they have can get through the ice. So again I don’t know exactly what you mean, we seem pretty dominate but I would suggest that overall save for the sun going nova that microbes have a higher probability or surviving long term.

 

So if I can go out on a limb I guess it would be the state which can persist the longest in time as a criteria possibly? Reduced to merely vertebrates?

 

Well I would have to say humans being we are not niche dependent. We can take I think the most disturbance of say vertebrates and survive. Small mammals come into question in regards to say a nuclear war scenario and other situations but they would have to still find a niche and or overall adapt in time to one. We could potentially skip a lot of that by creating our own still. So I would say our brain is the best along with generalist behavior, I would say it could also be our own downfall of course in respects to issues like global climate change, ecological ruin, or more or less we still stand open to say natural selection. I guess it would come down to if humans can empirically and objectively access and decide really on course of actions that retain the highest possible fitness, being we still have an instinctual side if not all of it being that;) , time will tell.

[Sisyphus]

I very much doubt there has ever been a terrestrial vertebrate species whose range rivaled ours. And in a geological timeframe, we have only been so "dominant" for an extremely short period. So it's too early to say if humanity's rise is a stable shift, or if it's just a freak population explosion that dies off as quickly as it multiplied. Thinking of it as an explosion is actually apt in other ways, now that I think about it. Our unprecedented reign has also coincided with a mass extinction of other species at a rate exceeding even the greatest mass extinctions of the past, like the one that killed the dinosaurs.